BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 94(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,309Mumbai1,954Bangalore672Karnataka578Ahmedabad534Chennai526Jaipur432Kolkata371Hyderabad362Indore289Chandigarh248Pune189Surat167Raipur152Cochin123Visakhapatnam92Rajkot90Telangana69Jabalpur67Cuttack66Calcutta62Guwahati58Lucknow54Nagpur48SC30Jodhpur26Amritsar25Agra21Dehradun21Allahabad21Patna9Rajasthan6Panaji6Ranchi6Orissa6Varanasi4Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 143(3)4Section 143(2)4Addition to Income4Section 271(1)2Section 133A2Disallowance2Survey u/s 133A2

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 471/RAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

Section 68 of the Act. The ld. AR had also placed before us the copy of the purchase register as also the sales register to show that the quantity of purchases and the quantity of sales were fully tallied. It was a further submission that in respect of the revenue's appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has given

ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), HAZARIBAG vs. SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY, HAZARIBAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi
28 Sept 2022
AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68 of I.T. Act, the Ld.CIT (A) Hazaribag, erred in deleting the addition. The Ld.CIT (A) Hazaribag, relied upon the evidence put forwarded by the assessee before him in this regard and did not take into account the fact brought on the record by the Assessing officer.” 4. Ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the finding

DCIT, HAZARIBAGH vs. SRI RAJENDRA LAL, HAZARIBAGH

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 78/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Cross Objection No.05/Ran/2018 A.Y. : 2009-2010 Shri Rajendra Lal, Vs Acit, Circle-2, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Hazaribag Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) . & A.Y. : 2009-2010 Acit, Circle-2, Hazaribag Vs Shri Rajendra Lal, Prop: M/S Alankar Jewellers Malviya Marg, Hazaribag Pan No. : Aaqpl 6547 B Respondent (Appellant) .

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Poddar & Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings ld. AR of the And CO No.05/Ran/2018 assessee argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions and ld.CIT(A) having considered the findings and the submissions of the assessee dealt on the disputed issue, deleted the addition made u/s.69

RAM KUMAR,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No. 189/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Ram Kumar,…………………………………………..Appellant C/O. Ram Bilash Prasad Gupta, Gayatri Niwas, Ekta Colony, Majhi Tola, Adityapur, Jamshedpur-831013, Jharkhand [Pan:Anspk0996Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle, Office Road, Jamshedpur-831001, Jharkhand Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 194J

section 194J was Rs.4,68,868/- and professional receipts were Rs.46,88,681/- for FY 2017-18. During the course of survey operation, the assessee received Rs.14,72,295/- as per receipts of his professional fees from his clinic upto 28.02.2018, which is different from the above amount on which TDS was deducted. Professional receipts were Rs.62,94

JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 400/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

94,38,209/- Income from gaming zone amounting ITA 400/Ran/2024 Jokhiram Durgadutt Vs DCIT to Rs. 25,45,651/-. Receipt from advertisement space amounting to Rs. 2,33,500/-, receipts from events amounting to Rs. 5,70,000/-, total amount comes to Rs. 2,27,87,360/-. From the above facts, the Assessing Officer held that the above receipts aggregating

JAMIPOL LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

ITA 68/RAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Prasad, CIT(A), ld.Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(2)

7,62,304 0 No disallowance 2010-11 1,35,05,13,693 19,01,57,253 4,59,896 0 No disallowance 2011-12 1,35,66,57,068 19,12,07,659 4,01,828 4,01,828 100% Adhoc disallowance 10. We find that the ld. DR did not controvert the above submissions of the ld.AR that